“A statement issued by her office said: “It has been brought to my attention that the PSC logo appears to reflect 1917, pre-creation of Israel, borders and as such could be open to interpretation by some as implying non-recognition of Israel’s right to exist. I am following this up with the director of the PSC since I am quite sure that PSC does indeed recognise Israel’s right to exist, and it is unhelpful and damaging if any other impression is given.”

This is welcome, as MP for Hove Pavilion and long-time Palestine Solidarity Campaign supporter, she stands some chance of influencing them.

But it is also confusing. The Green Party targets Israel, and only Israel, with an eliminationist boycott policy. The terms which Israel must meet before the Green Party will lift this boycott policy also “as such could be open to interpretation by some as implying non-recognition of Israel’s right to exist”. They require Israel to dismantle its defences against murderous religious and secular nationalists who have been targeting Jewish civilians since before Israel came into existence.

Then there is the matter of up to 10 million people designated Palestinian refugees by the UN, descendants of the 800,000 who were displaced when the incipient Israel was attacked by its neighbours in 1948-9 (fewer than 460,000 of whom are still living). These Palestinian refugees were denied citizenship in many of the lands which received them (Jordan being an exception), where they served as political pawns. The Taba Accords allow the right of return to those born in Israel, with some affordance for family reunification. The Green Party’s boycott resolution demands that all 10 million are granted Israeli citizenship or compensated.

Pull that stunt at home and you wouldn’t get elected. People would correctly assume you intended to do away with the country. So why try it with Israel?

De Linke withdraws PSC support for palestine solidarity campaigning because of antisemitism (update: this item shouldn’t really be here, since it refers not to the PSC, but the type of approaches espoused by the PSC)

Of course, it is possible to be a little cynical about this. After all, that logo is hardly new, Caroline is a former (or current?) patron of the PSC, and she/various GP speakers have shared platforms with members of organizations which are quite open about their desire for the disparition of Israel.

But the same reason which could lead to be cynical can also lead to appreciate this as a significant political gesture. After all, one of the main problematic aspect of the boycott campaign has been this continuum between people who are seeking the destruction of Israel and those who are seemingly only seeking the end of the occupation. Here is, for once, a clear request for putting some clear water between these two positions.

This is so tiresome. Just denounce anyone or anything that supports the rights of Palestinians to live in peace and justice and free from occupation.

Whatever the PSC is it certainly hasn’t built any walls around anyone, nor does it imprison children or blockade entire populations. Niether does the PSC shoot at unarmed protestors or fire missiles at civilians or shoot fishermen.

Luke, in comparing the PSC to Israel, you’re responding to an argument nobody is making. We are asking something very simple – that people hold the PSC to the anti-racist standards they might apply to any other organisation.

The argument in this case is not about Israel or Palestinians, but about the character of our solidarity movements.